DIC: takeover thread

[Code72]

Originally Posted by Falla

The point being he posted it in good faith after getting info from someone he trusts.

[keysaint]

I've got mates and in laws who are united fans and they reckon the demand for united tickets is nowhere near what it was. They've been offered decent season tickets directly from man u. they called up offering them.

[Kennys_spell]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

Hicks is trying with the hedge funds to buy Gillett out. If he manages to do that, there will be no board to oppose him.

'IF' the biggest word in the English language.

*Not physically of course, it's a metaphore!

[Kennys_spell]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

On paper, he will have the power to say fuck off to Hicks but financially, will he have the power? If he has the kind of financial power that Hicks has, he won't be desperate to sell.

The point here is that the current set up in the board would make it very very dangerous for Hicks to take the loan out against the club - he'd have to do it against his own name and that in the hope he could convince Gillett to sell his 50% to him.

Squeeky bum time for Hicks!

[Kennys_spell]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

That is just a general hope for many reds. Nothing concrete about what will happen when the refinancing time comes around again. However, in my opinion, there is no way Gillett will drag this situation on that long. If, as you say, the banks intervene, the situation will be equally bad for both Gillett and Hicks. From Gillett's point of view, when the banks intervene, he will have lost a buyer in Hicks so in theory, DIC can offer 1/3rd of what they are offering now. Anyway, as I have said, who knows what is going to happen in 1 year's time.

I don't know about the exclusivity deal mate - some say it exists while others say it doesn't.

How will it be just as bad for Gillett? He's said that he'll sell his 50% to DIC. They'll assume his 50% of the current loan.

Gillett isn't losing Hicks as a potential buyer as he's already said he won't sell to him. As soon as Hicks fails to come up with the money to 'make an offer to purchase' Gillett's 50%, Gillett is free to sell to however he chooses.

[Sinos]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

The premiership money has rocketed since Glazers took over. Plus the fact that there is a huge potential for us marketing wise considering our fan base. Parry failed in this department but if Hicks sorts this out, he will be laughing all the way to the bank.

The new stadium with corporate boxes will double our matchday income.

Then why is having to take the very risky route of raising money from hedge funds to get the capital for a buyout from Gillett?

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by Kennys_spell

How will it be just as bad for Gillett? He's said that he'll sell his 50% to DIC. They'll assume his 50% of the current loan.

Gillett isn't losing Hicks as a potential buyer as he's already said he won't sell to him. As soon as Hicks fails to come up with the money to 'make an offer to purchase' Gillett's 50%, Gillett is free to sell to however he chooses.

You are just making an assumption that Gillett will be free to sell to whoever he wants if Hicks doesn't match the offer. Like many of us on here.

I know Gillett has said he won't sell to Hicks but if this situation drags on for another 11 months, do you think Gillett will be sitting on a beach sipping champagne? And what if DIC had walked away by then? What if the banks refuse to lend them money? If the banks refuse to lend Hicks, Hicks can no longer keep his 50% shares, never mind buy Gillett out (this is what I meant by Gillett losing a buyer). These are the things Gillett will be worried about the longer this goes on.

At any case, Gillett also said he won't be putting the debt on the club. He also wanted to keep the refinancing news quiet. Going by his past 'promises', there is no guarantee that he won't sell to Hicks.

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by Sinos

Then why is having to take the very risky route of raising money from hedge funds to get the capital for a buyout from Gillett?

Possibly because the lenders are demanding more personal guarantees from Hicks? And Hicks doesn't want to take any risk and prefers putting all the risk on the club?

Your guess is as good as mine mate.

[Kaizer Sauze]

For what its worth, I would pay little attention to Herberts piece in the indy

[Sinos]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

Possibly because the lenders are demanding more personal guarantees from Hicks? And Hicks doesn't want to take any risk and prefers putting all the risk on the club?

Your guess is as good as mine mate.

You don't go go to hedge funds unless you have nowhere else to turn. The silly fat twat is getting desperate because he know's if can't match DIC's he won't be able to prevent a sale.

[real red]

Originally Posted by coop

...one thing i do know is if Hicks does go ahead with his plan and get the money then we had better hope we qualify for the Champions League every season because room for error is not an option.

Everyone who Tom Hicks has approached have so far refused to back him which should give you an indication of what other people in the financial world think of his idea.

On the first point have a read of this - Red and White Kop - www.redandwhitekop.net - especially the last couple of paras.

Not that it makes everything rosy. It says we can't really do a Leeds by missing out on the CL. But we could do a Spurs, which is of course still a shit place to be compared to our aspirations.

On the second point there's plenty of anecdotal evidence of numerous financiers knocking him back, but if he went to 100, and 90 said no, would the other 10 be going to the papers to tell them anything about it? Of course the other 10 may have said "Maybe, let me ask the boss" and the "no" came a few days later.

Originally Posted by Bernard Diomede

I'm confused, if god forbid Hicks should get the financing in place gillette still has the power to tell him to swivel doesn't he?theirs nothing written to say gillette has to accept his bid is their?

Gillett wouldn't have to accept an offer from Hicks (unless he'd invited Hicks to make an offer in a way that he couldn't then get out of). But he can't accept one from DIC after turning one down for the same amount from Hicks.

And of course it's not just down to the amount. In the same way that £1m + Carson + Riise is not the same as £10m cash, or £10m cash over three years is not the same as £10m cash now, Hicks' offer might not be the same as DIC's.

Originally Posted by Kennys_spell

Am I wrong here or isn't all this 'Hedge fund begging' pointless if the board stand against him and refuse to allow him to load the borrowing against the club. The board have a clear majority of 4 - 2, with Gillett claiming he'll 'never sell to Hicks'.

Let him go and put himself deeper and deeper into debt.

Hicks wouldn't be buying the club. He'd be buying the other half of the holding company. The holding company has two partners, who each have half a vote. There is no majority. And Parry and Moores have no say in it.

He can put the borrowing against the holding company, which owns the club, and if he wants to move the borrowing directly onto the club he can do that later, when he's overruled the board as the 100% shareholder. And the board don't have much say in anything anyway.

The only obstacle then is GG. If Hicks has legally got the option to block DIC, then all GG has left is to sell to Hicks or hang on in there as 50% owner.

Originally Posted by Sinos

Then why is having to take the very risky route of raising money from hedge funds to get the capital for a buyout from Gillett?

We don't know if he is, we just know one finance reporter did an article saying he was. If he was, we don't know if he was looking at getting hedge funds for 49% of the club or 4% of the club. I'm not saying the article's false or otherwise, but we fall too easily into believing everything we read in the papers if it's against Hicks. If it had been the financial reporting world's equivalent of Bluto we'd neither know nor care, just as long as it added a bit more wood to that Tom Hicks bonfire.

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

You are just making an assumption that Gillett will be free to sell to whoever he wants if Hicks doesn't match the offer. Like many of us on here.

I know Gillett has said he won't sell to Hicks but if this situation drags on for another 11 months, do you think Gillett will be sitting on a beach sipping champagne? And what if DIC had walked away by then? What if the banks refuse to lend them money? If the banks refuse to lend Hicks, Hicks can no longer keep his 50% shares, never mind buy Gillett out (this is what I meant by Gillett losing a buyer). These are the things Gillett will be worried about the longer this goes on.

At any case, Gillett also said he won't be putting the debt on the club. He also wanted to keep the refinancing news quiet. Going by his past 'promises', there is no guarantee that he won't sell to Hicks.

Gillett will hit a point I'm sure where he'd sell to Hicks if that became the best option for him. He doesn't give a shit otherwise. So DIC have to ensure that Gillett's best option isn't Hicks, or one night over a couple of bourbons the club will become 100% Hicks'.

[real red]

Originally Posted by Kaizer Sauze

For what its worth, I would pay little attention to Herberts piece in the indy

Another Ian Herbert story, from March 25th:

DIC to seal £400m deal for Liverpool in 'three to four weeks'

[hamstrung]

He's a right Herbert

[Section_31]

Sitrep

[aws]

good summary from real red which rings very true to me

[Bernard Diomede]

Gillett wouldn't have to accept an offer from Hicks (unless he'd invited Hicks to make an offer in a way that he couldn't then get out of). But he can't accept one from DIC after turning one down for the same amount from Hicks.

And of course it's not just down to the amount. In the same way that £1m + Carson + Riise is not the same as £10m cash, or £10m cash over three years is not the same as £10m cash now, Hicks' offer might not be the same as DIC's.

So hypothetically if Hicks made a 200 million bid for Gillette's shares and he knocked it back, and DIC made a 210 million bid he could accept their offer? I know thats very simplistic but in theory?

[aws]

Originally Posted by Bernard Diomede

Gillett wouldn't have to accept an offer from Hicks (unless he'd invited Hicks to make an offer in a way that he couldn't then get out of). But he can't accept one from DIC after turning one down for the same amount from Hicks.

And of course it's not just down to the amount. In the same way that £1m + Carson + Riise is not the same as £10m cash, or £10m cash over three years is not the same as £10m cash now, Hicks' offer might not be the same as DIC's.

So hypothetically if Hicks made a 200 million bid for Gillette's shares and he knocked it back, and DIC made a 210 million bid he could accept their offer? I know thats very simplistic but in theory?

Yes. He could accept a higher offer from DIC but not the same or a lower offer.

[real red]

And he may or may not then have to offer Hicks the chance to match the higher offer.

[Bernard Diomede]

Nice one lads, just to throw another one at ya's say the scenario i said above happened and gillette sold, and hicks stuck around with DIC could they buy him out for less than what they paid for gillettes half at a later date?say when hicks was trying to refinance in a years time?